Forum:Overhaul of PR, FA,
It's been suggested several times that there are problems with the current peer review, featured article, and article of the week systems. Hopefully, this forum can find a solution. __TOC__ Peer reviews Problems: *Over half of all peer reviews result in less than 5 comments *Peer reviews tend to only be a step to FAs, which isn't the actual idea I suggest scrapping the entire PR system, and replacing it with this new one: *A template placed on the article asking for a peer review, either in general, or for a section. *Instead of a separate page, a section on the article's talk page will be used. *The template would have parameters to direct the peer review to the section on the talk page and highlight the reason for review. *A PR can be ended as quickly as input is given. No time frame is necessary since PR will not be tied to FAs. *The template could be changed to look less like the "problem" message templates as well. I think this will solve the problem with comments. Currently PR notices are on the talk page, with the review elsewhere. This doesn't really invite comments from readers or contributors, and reviewing the entire article is a daunting task unless there's a reason to get it done quickly. By placing the notice where it can be seen, and allowing for only a section to be reviewed, I think that we'll get more input. This, along with the changes to the FA system below, should also make the peer review system one where you use it to "flag down" readers and editors for particular issues or changes that require more input, instead of simply a relatively unnecessary step to a FA. - 19:48, November 17, 2011 (UTC) :I wouldn't mind this change (independent of what becomes of the changes suggested below), although I wouldn't want to call it scrapping/replacing. It's still the same system of inviting comments, just on a different talk page. :That said, I'm not sure we should go back to having big fraking signs on our articles, if those signs aren't meant to notify readers of article shortcomings (like the PNA messages). If it only concerns editors, it should stay out of view of readers... -- Cid Highwind 20:38, November 17, 2011 (UTC) Well then, were updating it to this one. ;) Part of what I was imaging when changing the template was to tone it down overall, something closer to size and colors of the spoiler section template. The reason to make it visible to readers is that we're trying to invite the largest number of people to contribute, and I think a number of our readers would be happy to leave their thoughts on the matter, especially if it's just a section. - 21:28, November 17, 2011 (UTC) ::Maybe it could also be noted on the main page the specific PRs that are under evaluation at any given time, so as to invite even more users to participate(?) Just an idea. :) --Defiant 00:59, November 18, 2011 (UTC) The real problem with placing anything else on the main page is the question of where it should go. There's already a ton of links on there, and cramming in a variable list makes it even worse, since we don't really have control over how many PRs are going at any time. A link to PRs could replace the FA link in the box at the bottom though (new users can't really participate in a FA anyway). That said, we could also stick a link in the nav menu at the top to Memory Alpha:Peer review, where they are listed. - 01:14, November 18, 2011 (UTC) ::The main page currently does seem quite jumbled. I'd probably opt for grouping all the site-specific stuff together as well as (separately) all the news-y items that are not directly related to MA ("where to watch", "latest news", etc.), and then position the MA elements at the top. I believe I understand the motive for having the "latest news" at the top, as active content does (demographically-wise) generate interest in the wiki, but I don't see the problem with having the changing aspects be more MA related, rather than news items that might divert newcomers away from this site. The PR could then be one of these active features, directly relevant to MA. --Defiant 01:30, November 18, 2011 (UTC) You could create a mock up at Portal:Main/temp, since user subpages have wikia crap on them now and aren't full width. We should also continue any discussion on the main page elsewhere. - 01:48, November 18, 2011 (UTC) ::I agree, though I did intentionally dovetail my last post back into this discussion. --Defiant 01:51, November 18, 2011 (UTC) :::I support this idea. --31dot 02:27, November 18, 2011 (UTC) Feature articles Problems: *Not all articles are actually featured *Some FAs are years old *Significant overlap with PRs *Resolving objections while maintaining stability tends to be overly difficult or impossible, especially in small articles *Old nominations are moved to two different locations depending on what happened. ---- The main change would be to add the current two week stability period at the end of a PR to be a part of the FA nomination by removing the time limit on nominations. This would work like this: *Article nominated *Someone makes a good objection, pointing out how the article could be improved *Article is significantly edited to resolve the objection *After two weeks without significant changes or objections the article is featured *A nomination can continue as long as there are timely changes being made to address objections. *The nominations page will be used for all discussion about the nomination (this is already what we do, though according to the rules we shouldn't be.) *All closed nominations would be moved to the article's talk page. The archive will be dismantled and replaced with links to the sections on the talk pages. While these changes would mean that FA nominations would now take at least two weeks to resolve, this shouldn't be that big a problem considering we've already decided with the current PRs that for everyone to participate, two weeks is a good period of time. This should also solve the overlap problem with PRs by internalizing the entire process. The changes to the AotW system below should resolve problems with these actually being "featured" as well. - 19:52, November 17, 2011 (UTC) Updating FAs As part of this, I would suggest that every so often, FAs would need to be reconfirmed. Currently, the only way to do this is to remove the article from being featured and then renominate it. This is rather silly if the article is still considered one of the best, so essentially every so often we would update which revision we consider to be "the" FA. Currently, the template marks articles older than two years, so every two years a FA would be "voted" upon again (a page could display articles in the hidden cat that need this, and these discussions could be displayed on the recent changes page with the FA nominations). If the majority agrees that the article is still "the best MA has to offer" after two weeks, the revision at that time would replace the original. This is would solve the problem of differences in the current revision and the featured revision, since over the course of two years it's expected that images, templates, and other things would change, as well as weed out articles that no longer meet standards. - 19:48, November 17, 2011 (UTC) :"Old FAs" are a problem only if we want to actually do something with articles that have been featured a while ago. Currently, we note what article revision has been the FA revision, and there's a handy link to the diff between this and the current revision. Something we might want to do with "Featured Articles" is to really feature them. As I already stated in the section below, if we can make sure that featuring happens shortly after them becoming FA, this is not a big problem. Only if we feature them again and again without doing anything inbetween, it becomes a problem. I'd rather solve that by not featuring "old FAs"... -- Cid Highwind 20:34, November 17, 2011 (UTC) The problem as you describe it, and I understand it, with old FAs is one of the word "featured" meaning "featured on the main page" instead of "having the significant characteristic of being one of the best". Both of these things are correct, and since all FAs are available to the public at all times, they should still be "noted" as such because of the latter regardless of former. Reconfirming FAs, by updated the revision that's featured, is suppose to deal with the issue of changes to the article during a long period of time without the article becoming less than one of the best articles. - 21:28, November 17, 2011 (UTC) ::Maybe re-evaluating each old FA the week before it's to be featured on the main page might encourage users to participate in the reevaluation process. --Defiant 01:05, November 18, 2011 (UTC) Article of the Week Problems: *Not all FAs are a AotW *Some AotW are years old Instead of having a FA each week, a FA would be randomly displayed either each week, or on each page load. This way all our FAs are actually featured at some point, and old articles are given just as much notice as new ones. So to clarify, Memory Alpha:Article of the Week would more or less be merged with Memory Alpha:Featured articles. We would still use subpages, but instead of numbers the page title should be used. - 19:48, November 17, 2011 (UTC) :Further problems: :*Not all AotW were FA nominees (I believe, unless that has been changed in the meantime) :*Even for FA AotWs, the article snippet that is displayed on the main page is not the outcome of any community/consensus process, but was just created by whoever added the AotW. :On top of that, I don't like the idea of "randomizing" articles being displayed - at least not under the current title of "Article of the Week". If we randomize articles, that should be made clear by removing the title "AotW" completely. :Also, what this suggestion does not achieve is to actually feature articles when they become a "Featured Article" - instead, we still end up with articles that are called "Featured", but actually aren't - and when they eventually are featured on the main page, it may be in an article revision that doesn't resemble the revision that was voted for. -- Cid Highwind 20:29, November 17, 2011 (UTC) It's my understanding that all AotWs are featured articles now*, and AotW blurbs are open for votes/comments before being added, so there is a community effort, at least as much as the community wants to involve itself. I also didn't mention it outright, but by merging AotW with Featured articles, I meant it to be called "Featured articles" (with the templates and other pages updated to reflect that). Randomizing the "featured article" template so a new one displays on every page load would mean that a new FA could be potentially be on the main page the day it's blurb is added to the "pool". A weekly system means that it could be as soon as the next week. - 21:28, November 17, 2011 (UTC) *Actually, Klingon (Week 4) and (Week 38) aren't, and need to be replaced either way. - 21:50, November 17, 2011 (UTC) Now that I think about it, merging Memory Alpha:Nominations for AotW with Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles might be a good idea if this is approved, since the blurb would be required right afterward anyway. - 23:31, November 17, 2011 (UTC)